Altruistic World Online Library

Identified as a trouble maker by the authorities since childhood, and resolved to live up to the description, Charles Carreon soon discovered that mischief is most effectively fomented through speech. Having mastered the art of flinging verbal pipe-bombs and molotov cocktails at an early age, he refined his skills by writing legal briefs and journalistic exposes, while developing a poetic style that meandered from the lyrical to the political. Journey with him into the dark caves of the human experience, illuminated by the torch of an outraged sense of injustice.

It Takes A Lot to Laugh (It Takes A Train to Cry): The Tragedy of Hulk Hoganby Charles CarreonMarch 12, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker Media trial is a spectacle that takes shape in the eye of the beholder. Lies and distortion spin out of the courthouse like gravity waves emanating from a Hollywood black hole. Any apparent truth extracted from the event will decay into falsehood within instants of its discovery, displaying a half life shorter than a Beryllium isotope. However, I have been always fond of rarities, and perhaps by inspecting the wreckage surrounding the collision between Hulk Hogan, the unstoppable human force, and Gawker Media, the immovable corporate object, we can find some subatomic remnants worthy of attention.

Hogan's giant fall is the story. Hogan enjoyed worldwide adulation, on a par with Bruce Jenner and Lance Armstrong, whose bones were recently picked clean by the slander cartel. Falls of this magnitude drag down legions of fans, disappointing the entire tribe of sport, casting nations into despondency. And pain is a matter of degree. When there's farther to fall, the fall hurts more. As Edward II in Christopher Marlowe's play cries, in a howl of agony, "The sorrows of kings are not like the sorrows of other men!"

But sympathy for those who fall from the empyrean realms is rare. Scandal vampires, mumbling pious sympathy while chewing the cud of revenge, devour pictures of bloated starlets on the beach and burned out leading men breathing through tubes. When stars fall, they become psychic food for jealous mobs. No longer stars, their misery does not tarnish the illusion that wealth immunizes against pain.

The belief that rich people defeat misery and possess pleasure fires the popular imagination, motivates social climbers, and mutes political complaints. Actually a myth for which evidence is lacking, the belief that wealth preempts suffering is reinforced by the media at every turn. "Oh!" we are urged to dream -- "What it must be like to live like the Few!" F. Scott Fitzgerald was equating wealth with happiness and perhaps even moral superiority when he told Hemingway that "the rich are not like other people." Hemingway's retort, "Yes, they have more money," ensured a reverent place for his memory in the hearts of broke people everywhere.

Nonetheless, the empyrean heights are dangerous, and falls calamitous. Murdered by torture in the Tower of London, the agonies of Edward the Second were indeed excessive. Compared to such a devastating leveling, Hogan's sufferings may seem small; however, we should not blind ourselves to his pain and its cause. Wealth made him a target and created his problem. His name is a publicity magnet that others, like Gawker, were eager to exploit. The sex video, being a true voyeuristic theft of a famous man's privacy, was enormously valuable in the right hands. The sex happened, and the video existed, only because a man Hogan thought was his friend set it up to happen and made the film. Like an elephant in the bush, Hogan was bagged for his tusks.

Hogan's testimony about how shame and humiliation now emanate from his own mind, destroying his ability to relate with others with confidence and self-respect, is direct, first-person evidence of how a public shaming gives the victim a heart transplant. In exchange for the familiar, self-confident, self-respecting heart that usually beats in your chest, you get a filthy, defiled, garbage-pumping organ that circulates humiliation through every cell in your body, and makes you fear every human interaction as another challenge to your right to exist.

As I thought over the transcript of Hulk Hogan's trial testimony, and that of his furious estranged wife, who put her unhealed pain on record, I felt the poignancy of seeing a big man beat down to nothing. When I started writing this piece, casting about for some way to express that pain, I thought of the title of that Dylan song, "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes A Train to Cry." Although the news reports don't mention the world's most famous wrestler crying in the courtroom, I am sure it took a trainload of strength for him to give that testimony [1] , to reveal the foolish behavior that launched him on the road to total personal destruction.

Martin Luther King and the Invention of "New York Times Malice"

While the miseries of the powerful might lead us to sympathize with them when their names are dragged through the muck, the law proceeds from entirely different suppositions. The famous are deemed to have the means to "talk back" in the media, so they are "public figures," and the media doesn't have to be as careful to tell the truth about them.

This wasn't the case until March 9, 1964, when the United States Supreme Court published New York Times v. Sullivan, and punched a hole in defamation law big enough to launch a communication satellite mounted on a Saturn V rocket straight through. Before NYT v. Sullivan, suing people for talking dirt about you required only some basic allegations: your neighbor had "published" a "false statement" to third persons who understood the statement to be "of and concerning" you, and as a result, people no longer want to associate with you. And it wasn't any safer to tell lies about a "public figure" than it was to tell lies about regular people. Strangely enough, it was a certain Martin Luther King, Jr., who had begun stirring the pot of American history, whose activities prompted this momentous change in the law of defamation. Ironically, he likely did more to liberate the news media from caution and restraint than he did to improve the condition of African-Americans. Not by preference, of course, but rather because even greatness does not empower us to defy fate, that uses us for its own purposes.

Yes, the Sullivan case had an unusual origin [2], intimately connected with the activities of Dr. King. The plaintiff who gave his name to the case was the police chief of Montgomery, Alabama, who alleged that the nation's newspaper of record had defamed him by publishing an advertisement seeking to raise funds for Dr. King's legal defense, signed by luminaries such as Marlon Brando, Shelley Winters, Harry Belafonte, Sammy Davis Jr., and Dr. Ralph Bunche. Among other factual inaccuracies, the advertisement overstated the number of times King had been arrested. Although not named in the advertisement, Sullivan said that criticism of the Montgomery police was "of and concerning" him. Published by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South, the advertisement included a clip-out coupon to send with a contribution or to request more information.

It has often been said that hard cases make bad law, which is to say that, when the social issues are stacked up ten stories high on either side, it's going to be hard for the judge to make a ruling that will apply well as precedent in future cases. The Montgomery Police Chief's legal attack on the nation's pre-eminent liberal periodical caused the Supreme Court to circle the wagons. The Sullivan case produced this rule: A "public figure" cannot win a defamation lawsuit against a "media defendant" unless he proves that the defendant published a lie, and did so with "reckless disregard for the truth." My torts teacher Steve Schiffrin liked to call this "New York Times malice," a term that I see hasn't caught on, although I find it an excellent mnemonic to remember just how far a newspaper can go when treading on the faces of the famous.

Subsequent cases made it clear that there are two types of public figures: those who, like Hulk Hogan, have names that are as well-known as popular brands, and those who, because of their desire to speak in the public forum, "inject themselves into events," and therefore themselves become "newsworthy topics." Of course, there was a time when Hulk Hogan was just Terry Bollea, a person he would now gladly remain forever, happily eschewing any possible reversion to Hulk-hood. But Terry was at one time eager to become Hulk Hogan, and vigorously injected himself into public life. He was so feckless about super-sizing his image that he went on the Howard Stern show, which always seems like a good idea at the time, but turns out to be nothing but an opportunity to take a shit shower provided by a man with a skanky mind whose special ability is to induce people who should know better to engage in offbeat behavior for which they will later apologize, or wish they could.

So just to review, based upon a decision that got rid of a frivolous lawsuit that was intended to silence African-American speech on the issue of white racism, we got a rule that says the newspapers can be less careful about being correct when they say negative things that might be lies about famous people, because they're famous and have means of shooting back at their defamers. Then that rule expanded to allow newspapers to be less careful about saying nasty things about anyone who speaks out on an issue of public importance. This second rule turns into a third rule that anyone whose statement on a public issue gets printed in the paper is presumed to have "injected themselves into the public debate," thereby becoming a "limited public figure," about whom the newspaper can safely make false statements, so long as they don't do so with "reckless disregard for the truth." The third rule, as you can see, essentially turns anyone who speaks out and gets publicity for it into that type of person who has a "bummer of a birthmark." [4]

What Is this "Privacy" of Which You Speak?

Some people live in the world as they wish it were. Want to find some of those people? Google the phrase "no constitutional right to privacy." You will find lots of articles proclaiming this to be the truth, but it is just plain wrong. Ten States' Constitutions protect the Right to Privacy, and Florida, where the Hogan trial is taking place, is one of them. [3] Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution states in relevant part: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein." Take note that the first part of the sentence protects the "right to be let alone," and while the second part of the sentence seems to limit the effect of Sec. 23 to protection from "governmental intrusion," this is in fact the place where it is most needed in the forty states that lack such a constitutional protection. [5]

This phrase "the right to be let alone" has a history. It was coined by Thomas M. Cooley in his law treatise, "Law of Torts," first published in 1880. [6] The phrase was adopted by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in a Harvard Law Review article published in 1890, because Warren had been suffering from attacks in the press. This article popularized the idea, which motivated judges to recognize a right to privacy under certain circumstances, and moved legislatures to enact statutes that gave the victims of privacy invasion the right to sue for damages.

There are four types of privacy invasion lawsuits, all of which can be pursued in Florida, as well as California and many other states: (1) appropriation of name or likeness (stealing publicity), (2) intrusion into private spaces (peeping and spying),(3) public disclosure of private facts (spreading embarrassing truths), and (4) publicizing true facts that cast the victim in a false light (very similar to the previous type of claim, but the misleading facts need not have been private).

Stealing Publicity to Sell Advertising

In his case against Gawker, Hogan has invoked Florida's "right of publicity" statute, Section 540.08, just as he did back in May 2010, when he sued the cereal company, Post Foods [7], for screening an ad with a cartoon character named "Hulk Boulder" who pushed chocolate frosted sugar bombs while infringing on Hogan's famous moniker and visage. Nineteen other states [8] have right of publicity statutes, that make it unlawful for anyone to "publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent [of the] person." In the lawsuit over the cartoon-Hulk, Post wised up after a few months, and pulled the commercial.

In that battle, Hogan was essentially saying, "If you want me to sell your stupid cereal, call my agent, don't call a cartoonist! I'm already a cartoon!" But Gawker wasn't selling cereal, were they? No, they were selling Gawker, so Gawker made a few improvements to the video, that was long and tedious, for the most part, editing it to less than a tenth of its original length, turning it into a real porn flick by cutting out everything but the oral sex and penetration scenes, and providing a crude account of the full-length production authored by a fellow named A.J. Daulerio, a one-hit bungler if ever there was one. Oh yes, he's no longer with Gawker.

To connect up the pillaging of Hogan's privacy with the misappropriation of Hogan's mega-publicity, his lawyers alleged that: "The Gawker Defendants posted the Video and Narrative [to profit from] the sale of advertisements" and [by] "attracting new viewers to the Gawker Site," whereupon "numerous media outlets and websites picked up on the Video and Narrative posted at the Gawker Site, and posted links to it, thus exposing hundreds of millions of people to the Video and Narrative [and] massive numbers of individuals were drawn to the Gawker Site, for which the Gawker Defendants have reaped tremendous revenues and profits ... for a prolonged period of time ... as a direct result of the tremendous fame and goodwill of Plaintiff."

You know it's hard to argue with that statement. When traffic goes up on Gawker, it doesn't do so because they published a picture of A.J. Daulerio wanking off wearing Kiss makeup and high heels. That wouldn't really be much of a draw, even if Nick Denton was doing performance art in the background, dressed in a black rubber suit. Nope, it was a case of Hulkmania, and probably sparked a lot of fan-sex. If every couple that made a baby while watching that short had named their kid "Hulk," there'd likely be preschools full of them right now.

Peeping and Spying, aka Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Now life has gotten pretty sketchy, but you can take it to the bank: it is illegal to film someone having sex in private without their permission. It doesn't matter what kind of sexual behavior they are engaged in, whether they are alone or with company, or whether one of the participants to the sex knows it's being filmed. It is illegal if it is your friend, your enemy, your neighbor, your teacher, your parents, your girlfriend, your boyfriend, your wife, or anyone. It is illegal to trick your way into a place where you've been told you aren't allowed to film, and then film there. (Caveat) [9]

"Intrusion upon seclusion" is the legal name for peeping and spying. The right to enjoy seclusion is simply "the right to be left alone." A recent law review article [10] explained what constitutes an "intrusion" into one's protected seclusion:

"Examples of intrusion include the illegal diversion or interception and opening of one's mail, peeping into one's home, the viewing of a department store's changing room by someone of the opposite sex where no adequate notice has been provided, persistent and unwanted telephone calls, wiretapping, or prying into a plaintiff's bank account. To be actionable, the intrusion must be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, and the thing intruded upon must be private."

Think about what this means, and you'll realize that this rule sets up a flexible standard that can easily bite nosey people with cameras right in the face. "Seclusion" is being enjoyed by anyone who thinks they are alone, whether they're sitting on the toilet, putting on makeup in the bathroom mirror, or changing their clothes in a dressing room. Once the privacy is set up, the person enjoying the privacy is protected from "intrusion." Anytime someone breaks through that seclusion without permission, or without giving sufficient notice to avoid an embarrassing revelation, they risk liability.

Is this right to enjoy seclusion unlimited? No, because it only protects things that have been kept private in the first place. As a key legal treatise on the subject states: "The rule stated in this Section applies only to publicity given to matters concerning the private, as distinguished from the public, life of the individual. There is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff which is already public. * * Likewise there is no liability for giving further publicity to what the plaintiff himself leaves open to the public eye." Thus, Gawker is arguing that Hogan has made the size of his penis and other sexual topics a matter of public discussion, and cannot be heard to complain that Gawker has revealed the identity of a secret sexual partner, the shape of his body, the sound of his voice as he engages in sexual activity.

Additionally, as Gawker keeps reminding us, the individual's right to keep things private is counterbalanced against the public's right to have knowledge of "newsworthy matters." Since this defense also applies to our last two privacy torts of "public disclosure of private facts," and "publicizing true facts that cast the victim in a false light," I will discuss these two torts first, then turn to the "newsworthiness" defense.

The Good, the Bad and the Seriously Misunderstood

Truth hurts. Often more than a lie, because you can't deny it. This is the problem that Hulk Hogan has. That really is him in the video, engaging in tawdry sex with a person he has no business being in bed with. Still, this is America, and just because you did something stupid doesn't mean that everyone automatically has the right to spread it all over. There are such things as "private facts" that it is tortious to "publicly disclose."

Now, in truth, this is a tort that business has got to love, because it's all about relationships and expectations. If a fellow gets drunk and goes down to the bar and foolishly spills the beans about the affair he's been having with his secretary, he cannot sue the bartender for telling the secretary's husband. Nothing was kept private, the cat got outta the bag, and them's the breaks.

But take another situation. The bartender overhears a quiet, murmured conversation between two doctors from the hospital around the corner, sharing health information about a person in the neighborhood who has HIV. The bartender tells all of his customers what he overheard. A private fact, that would normally be kept hidden from the public and is highly offensive to a reasonable person, has been disclosed to the public. Okay, now that's a tort, and neither truth nor lack of malice is a defense. Damages for plaintiff.

What about the last privacy tort on our list, "publicizing true facts that cast the victim in a false light"? To help you understand this one, I'll quote my Dad: "Son, don't do good things that look bad, or bad things that look good." I took issue with his exhortation, arguing that we shouldn't refrain from doing good things because others might criticize. Dad countered that there were plenty of good things to do that no one would say looked bad, so when I was done with all of those, I could indulge in good works that might endanger my reputation.

So let's imagine I finally did all the goodie-two-shoes stuff, and wanted to do something good that looked bad. I would go to strip bars and give out Christmas presents for the dancers who had kids, and give the bouncers back rubs. Of course, some paparazzi would photograph me coming out the back door of a dive and caption it with something misleading like, "PunkLawyer eighty-sixed for pawing dancers!" Then I would sue them for false light privacy invasion and call the bouncers as witnesses that they were the only people I laid hands on.

Gawker and the Advent of Newsworthy Porn

According to Hogan's lawyers, Gawker's edit of the Video was watched 7 Million times. Obviously people wanted to watch it. The defense of "newsworthiness" has been tendered by Gawker. Does it have any validity? According to the U.S. Supreme Court [11], when the defense of newsworthiness is offered to excuse a breach of privacy, "the first inquiry is whether the newspaper 'lawfully obtained truthful information about a matter of public significance.'"

So, let's get to it: (1) Did Gawker get the sex tape lawfully? (2) Are the sex tape and the narrative truthful? (3) Are the sex tape and written narrative of public significance?

Unlawful Acquisition of the Tape

Gawker and other media outlets keep suggesting that Hogan knew he was being videotaped having sex with Heather Clem, but the evidence cuts the other way. Hogan has always been consistent in saying that he didn't know. Heather Clem corroborated that statement. Hogan's lawyer argued at length that the video had been made in violation of the Florida Video Voyeurism law. Sixth Judicial District Pinellas County Case No. 12012447-CT011, Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Hon. A.M. Campbell (April 24, 2013). And there's that snippet of the video where Bubba Clem tells Heather that this tape is "their retirement." Conclusion: The video was created by deception with the intent to profit from Hogan's fame, and therefore was illegally made. Thereafter, the taint of its unlawful creation cannot be purged, and anyone who uses such a videotape has united their intention with that of the phony lover and her wretched spouse, the secret videographer. Gawker could only have used the tape by getting permission from Hogan and his sex partner. Gawker did not try to get permission, and knew the tape had been made and distributed without Hogan's consent.

Editing the Tape and Adding the Narrative Distorted the Truth

It's undisputed that the tape that people watched 7 Million times was not the one recorded by Bubba Clem. Rather, it was a clip less than two minutes long that Gawker called a "Highlights Reel." Now why did they do that? Because it makes the whole thing much more likely to be watched by people who are busy, and just want to see if it's really Hulk Hogan having sex. Because it makes it more like pornography. Because it objectifies the Hulk and his sex partner, making them seem more like disposable action figures that we can set into action and play for our pleasure. The editing and the tasteless, horrible narrative written by A.J. Daulerio to accompany it, are not truthful depictions of what happened in the Hulk's tryst with Heather Clem. He didn't set out to make a porn tape. Even Bubba Clem didn't. Gawker did.

The Sex Tape and Narrative Were Not Sufficiently Significant to the Public to Justify the Invasion of Hogan's PrivacyThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals posed a rhetorical question in a 1975 case [12]: "Does the spirit of the Bill of Rights require that individuals be free to pry into the unnewsworthy private affairs of their fellowmen?" The answer was in the negative: "In our view it does not [because] privacy must have the protection of law if the quality of life is to continue to be reasonably acceptable. The public's right to know is, then, subject to reasonable limitations so far as concerns the private facts of its individual members."

The media's invasion of a famous person's privacy isn't made lawful simply because the public is curious about everything they do. The Restatement of Torts explains where we draw the line on "determining what is of legitimate public interest" for purposes of the defense of newsworthiness:

"In determining what is a matter of legitimate public interest, account must be taken of the customs and conventions of the community; and in the last analysis what is proper becomes a matter of the community mores. The line is to be drawn when the publicity ceases to be the giving of information to which the public is entitled, and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake, with which a reasonable member of the public, with decent standards, would say that he had no concern. * * *"

Nor does the revelation of true facts by means of an invasion of privacy make the invasion lawful. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained why it does not:

"To hold that privilege extends to all true statements would seem to deny the existence of "private" facts, for if facts be facts -- that is, if they be true -- they would not (at least to the press) be private, and the press would be free to publicize them to the extent it sees fit. The extent to which areas of privacy continue to exist, then, would appear to be based not on rights bestowed by law but on the taste and discretion of the press. We cannot accept this result."

Based on these simple directives from the judiciary, that place a value on preserving a sense of decency and decorum in society, and protecting its members from outrageous revelations that can turn them into social pariahs overnight, it is hard to see where a legitimate newsworthiness defense can be presented to justify Gawker's act of turning a secretly filmed, objectively boring video into a piece of celebrity porn by means of editing and low-life promotional tactics.

The testimony of Gawker's own witness, former Editor in Chief A.J. Daulerio, was played at the Florida trial, and did the defendant no favors on the newsworthiness issue. Daulerio, no doubt thinking he sounded clever in New York, testified that he would not publish a sex tape of a four-year old, and explained that his "editorial litmus test" requires only two factors: "Is it true, and is it interesting?" And of course, he found the surreptitiously recorded video of a famous wrestler having sex with a radio announcer's wife so "interesting" that he introduced it to the world with this deep, engaging contemplation: "Because the Internet has made it easier for all of us to be shameless voyeurs and deviants, we love to watch famous people have sex."

Hogan put a journalism professor on the stand to testify that Gawker's publication of the video and Daulerio's narrative was not responsible journalism, was unduly intrusive, and violated journalistic ethics. The public's need to know, said Prof. Mike Foley of the University of Florida, would've been satisfied with an article. They didn't need to see the tape. That sounds right to me. I haven't seen the tape, and I've written this whole article. Predictably, the Ethics Chairman for the Society of Professional Journalists objected to Prof. Foley's testimony about journalistic ethics, emailing his cronies at media outlets to urge them to push this line: "The SPJ Code of Ethics is not relevant to whether an act is or is not legal. The words 'ethical' and 'legal' are not synonyms."

Yes, of course, we lawyers know very well the difference. We have been trained to teach our clients how to act both legally and unethically. However, in this case, Gawker and its editors had no interest in listening to lawyers. They've been teaching their lawyers to help them pretend that the law is what they want it to be. Thus, we have received this lovely journalistic gift that they devised for the delight of all: "newsworthy" porn.

4. The law of libel and defamation has become a specialty so recondite that only truly dizzying intellects can fathom it. To explore the profundities of the public figure doctrine as applied to the theory of privacy law, see S.M. Gilles, Public Plaintiffs and Private Facts: Should the "Public Figure" Doctrine Be Transplanted into Privacy Law? 83 Nebraska Law Review (2014) http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol83/iss4/6

5. Most states have made “invasion of privacy” by private persons into a statutory claim that private parties can use to sue each other. It’s when the government gets all up in your business that you gotta start looking to the Constitution.

9. Investigative filmmakers may have legitimate first amendment defenses for this kind of trickery, though. Think animal rights activists filming in slaughterhouses, and prison activists filming in jails and prisons.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Oregon v. Huberty

In around 1998, I represented a retired airman named Don Huberty in People v. State of Oregon v. Huberty against a charge of Second Degree Trespass in probably the longest trespass trial in Josephine County history: three days. It took so long because Don’s defense against his refusal to leave the County offices was because he was exercising his right to free speech. As a well-known disputant with the Commissioners, his contention was credible, and Judge Mackey sent the case to the jury. Despite my fiery oratory and citation to the Oregon Revised Statutes that gave my client the right to be found innocent if his trespass was for reasons of free speech, the jury convicted Don. I don’t recall any punishment being imposed by Judge Mackey, who thought it was all a hoot, and the whole thing became part of history.

Free Speech Defense to Trespass on Public Property

Currently, the Oregon criminal law of trespass provides, in relevant part:

a police officer or authorized employee may exclude any person who violates any applicable provision of the rules of conduct in any place subject to this chapter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the exclusion of any person lawfully exercising free speech rights or other rights protected by the Oregon or U.S. Constitution. However, a person engaged in such protected activity who commits acts that are not protected, but that violate applicable provisions of law or rules of conduct, shall be subject to exclusion as provided by this chapter.

So, the question is “Can someone act up on public property?”

The answer is clearly “YES”

Right to First Amendment Activity On Private Property

What about private property? Even private property doesn’t give the absolute right to exclude, as the US Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Alabama, the case where the Jehovah’s Witnesses won the right to distribute religious literature in a company town. The opinion of Justice Black, the great Constitutionalist, was concurred in by Justice Frankfurter, and is a little roundabout in expressing the sentiment, but the bottom line is, the right to exclude others from your private property may end where the 1st Amendment right of the JW’s to proselytize their religion begins:

Our question then narrows down to this: Can those people who live in or come to Chickasaw be denied freedom of press and religion simply because a single company has legal title to all the town? … We do not agree that the corporation’s property interests settle the question.

Before the Marsh case, there was Martin v. City of Struthers, where Black told governments not to be gatekeepers of ideas:

For centuries it has been a common practice in this and other countries for persons not specifically invited to go from home to home and knock on doors or ring doorbells to communicate ideas to the occupants or to invite them to political, religious, or other kinds of public meetings. Whether such visiting shall be permitted has in general been deemed to depend upon the will of the individual master of each household, and not upon the determination of the community. In the instant case, the City of Struthers, Ohio, has attempted to make this decision for all its inhabitants.

When an opinion starts like that, you know where the City of Struthers is going: down.

Wring your hands and bemoan your fate as an Americano, because private property, even real estate, is not the citadel you thought it was. It is a porous castle. It’s kind of like fracking, when you think about it. You own your land, and enjoy it without interference. A trespasser shows up, and you run him off. But one day you get a letter from a lawyer, and a month later, a drill rig shows up because you don’t own the mineral rights. Watch these little movies about it if you don’t believe it.

Bundle of Rights Theory: Constitutional Limits on the Right to Exclude

How the heck can that be the case? Your property is just a bundle of rights, and the right to exclude others has limits. You can’t exclude the owners of mineral rights, or the owners of an easement for ingress and egress. And you can’t exclude “protesters” from a “public event” because by holding a “public event,” you have created a “public forum” that is subject to First Amendment rules.

However much it may seem to defy “common sense,” if there is such a thing, Trump does not have the right to control all speech in a rented hall, open to the public, as a national candidate for public office, presenting political ideas. He is speaking in a public forum, from a 1st Amendment perspective. So as to avoid burdening this post with more legal prose, I will just let you click the link to this article entitled “Fair Trespass” from the Columbia Law Review, that summarizes the important case law after introducing the topic in this fashion:

“[L]andowners who open their land to the public consequently face wide-ranging restrictions on the right to exclude that follow from state and federal constitutional protections of fundamental rights, such as (but not limited to) discrimination, equal protection, and free speech.”

How To Control Speech on Your Property: Don’t Hold a Public Event

Don’t want to do that to your property? Don’t hold a public event. Hold one of those private parties with $50K/plate dinners. Then all you have to worry about is the child of some closet liberal taking an iPhone video of you when you start spewing self-convicting Romneyisms.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

In an ordinary year, with no viable alternative to being mothered by a full-metal hen, Democratic voters would accept Hillary without cavil. But this unexpected headwind of discontent among the young has derailed her plans. Yes, along came Bernie, blowing her plan to inherit the White House from her boss. Everyone in the world had been kissing up to her, except for those Republicans with their Benghazi email nonsense, and they would surely come to heel.

Hillary and Bill do not attempt to conceal their sense of entitlement to rule. They have put together a network of world connections that will keep them very wealthy for a very long time, whether she returns as President to the White House, or not. She will be another great lady regardless how the nation’s process allocates the presidency.

Most young Democratic voters are rejecting Clinton’s appointment to the presidency by an ingrown technocratic elite. The privileged have led America into a morass. People are out of work, broke, unable to retire, unable to find work, unable to find homes, overdosing on lethal drugs. The privileged don’t know this, though. And up until this presidential election, it was possible to condition the mass mind with injections of television advertising. The connection was pretty much direct — deal the right spin at the right moment, inject enough ad dollars into prime time, and the election was yours.

This is not so easy these days. First, you can’t be influenced by TV if you don’t watch it, and a lot of the young voters don’t. Second, the young are less gullible about political advertising, in part because there’s so much of it, and in part because the ubiquity of digital advertising has deflated the persuasive value of all advertising. Third, the opposition now pushes counterspin through social media. And fourth, contrary to Hillary’s comment, the kids do a little research on political issues these days.

Precisely because the fix is in, the kids are not all right with the situation. Precisely because Hillary will tell you that she’s a sure thing, she is perhaps, not. I mean, it just burns you.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

"In Your Dreams: Bullshit, And They Will Come," by Tara Carreon

Sometimes you can tell you’re dreaming, because you notice that something you are seeing, or something you are doing, is impossible. The Tibetans teach you to stimulate this kind of observation by asking yourself, while wide awake, “Am I dreaming?” They say you develop the habit, and it creeps into your dreams, and then you look around, and you notice, for example, that the sidewalk you are walking on is made of transparent glass, which is clearly not reality, and you think, “Ah, I must be dreaming. Incredible dream sidewalk.” Or you wake up,. A year ago, if you’d dreamt of Donald Trump in the Oval Office, signing legislation under the Great Seal of the United States, you might have awakened your bed partner, laughing. That wouldn’t happen today. You would wake up in a cold sweat, in the grip of a prophetic nightmare. Nor could your bedmate offer real comfort — a dread chill would settle over your soul, and the long months of uncertainty from now until November of this year would become a purgatory of anxious waiting, hope and fear. We’ve crossed over into the borderland of a collective dreamworld. The impossible is now likely. What formerly seemed impossible, now seems fated in some noir reality.

There is no doubt that Mr. Trump is delusional. It has been some years since I realized that great wealth transfers almost always result from extortion tactics, not productive exchanges. Trump’s “Art of the Deal” approach to life was recently extolled in an op-ed by some farsighted Republican toady with mainstream credentials. According to this inveigling soul, “The Art of the Deal” showcases a mind that is apt, sharp, clever, cutting, incisive, demanding, and brooks no interference from lesser minds; therefore, he can maybe “do the job.”

Yes, but what is “the job?” Since Ronald Reagan was able to do it, and George W. Bush, it cannot be that difficult. Reagan is endlessly extolled for a Presidential performance that was eighty-percent posturing and twenty percent senility. Those who still express respect for George W. Bush, in whatever private place one performs that antisocial ritual, no doubt were simply won over by his ability to make it seem like he was “doing the job,” when he was actually just checking in with Dick between bike rides and shit. “The job” ostensibly involves being able to converse easily with high dignitaries of other nations, but George Herbert Walker Bush passed out and puked in the lap of the Prime Minister of Japan at a state dinner, so this requirement can obviously be fudged.

Pundits will compose lists of Presidential Qualifications, and then they’ll compare Trump’s qualifications with Hillary’s on a chart that excludes Bernie Sanders, because three would not be a lucky number for either Hillary or Trump. Trump will not have any of the qualifications and so, the pundits hope, like witch doctors concocting a particularly noxious spell, Trump will not be able to win. After Trump won the Indiana primary in early May, the Washington Post broke out in commentaries by pundits giving Hillary tips on how to avoid being mugged by Trump and his thuggish tactics. One guy was fretting about the situation like Hillary was Little Red Riding Hood, and Trump was the Big, Bad Wolf. If pundits populated the Electoral College, Trump would not have a chance.

But the Electoral College is stuffed with Political Animals and superdelegates, the Killer Klownz of our political universe. Every four years they come down in their spaceship and carry off any real candidates, leaving behind pod Presidents who rule over us and farm us as a food source. The experiment with Trump is a novel one. Pure wish fulfillment is all that is offered. No concrete policies, no promises of shit. Just the privilege of Riding with The King.

“Riding With The King”by John Hiatt

I dreamed I had a good job and I got well paidI blew it all at the Penny ArcadeA hundred dollars on a kewpie dollNo pretty chick is gonna make me crawl

Get on a TWA to the promised landEvery woman, child and manGets a Cadillac and a great big diamond ringDon’t you know you’re riding with the king?

He’s on a mission of mercy to the new frontierHe’s gonna check us all on out of hereUp to that mansion on a hillWhere you can get your prescription filled

Get on a TWA to the promised landEverybody clap your handsAnd don’t you just love the way that he sings?Don’t you know we’re riding with the king?

Riding with the kingDon’t you know we’re riding with the king?

A tuxedo and shiny three-thirty-fiveYou can see it in his face, the blue never lieTonight everybody’s getting their angel wingsAnd don’t you know we’re riding with the king?

I stepped out of Mississippi when I was ten years oldWith a suit cut sharp as a razor and a heart made of goldI had a guitar hanging just about waist highAnd I’m gonna play this thing until the day I die

Don’t you know we’re riding with the king?Don’t you know we’re riding with the king?You’re riding, you’re riding with the kingYou’re riding, you’re riding with the king

Riding with the kingDon’t you know we’re riding with the king?Riding with the king, riding with the king

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Good afternoon, evening, morning or whatever time it is for you, this is LofiNikita, signing on for the first time in a long time, because we have news, real news, for the first time in a long time. John Podesta's emails were hacked, according to the Obama Securitat, by an official Russian government hacker, as if you could believe anything the Obama Securitat said.

What was revealed by Podesta's Emails was, for those who give a damn, absolutely terrifying. Like looking down Grannie's throat and seeing that she had swallowed the big bad wolf, but this was not a good thing, because she'd turned out to be a Killer Klown from outer space, and she'd devoured the woodsman, too. Clearly a chilling moment for Little Red Riding Hood, who ran screaming from the old woman's house, all the way to town, where she was no more likely to be believed than the boy who cried wolf.

The Citizens United money hit the cable channels like Global Warming hit the weather, driving presumed partisans into soundbite-driven conflicts, triggering hurricanes of anger in the electorate, splintering the old alliance like Moby Dick smashing Captain Ahab's ship, leaving the GOP rudderless, in a lifeboat, with Donald Trump as the skipper. And unlike Gregory Peck in the famous movie, Lifeboat, Trump was not born to the leadership role. A passable bandit leader the man could have been, but only in the day of mass communication, backed by a thoroughly-corrupt financial system, and enabled by government patsies like Pam Bondi and the other numberless shills Trump's braggadocious character has procured him, only in this age, could he pass for a national leader.

Oh, that was so easy to say, and before the Podesta Emails, I would have thought it was the whole story. A craven press, a lapdog government, the flaccid minds of the electorate, a complete picture. But false. Bad as it is, that's not the problem. The problem is that Hillary's Campaign orchestrated all of this, aided and abetted Trump's rise to power. Now, let's look at this nicely. We could be flattered. Hillary is so confident that we will not vote for a pussygrabbing, authoritarian, white-power advocate who cheats on his taxes and lies about everything that she is willing to back a movement to make Trump a legitimate candidate.

Trump himself, of course, couldn't believe it. He had to call Bill Clinton for reassurance, rapist to rapist, that this was for real. We can imagine the conversation:

This maneuver, the induction of Trump as her chosen adversary, is probably not unique in the annals of US political history. George Herbert Walker Bush became the 41st President in the United States, despite a reedy voice, low testosterone, and a personality best described as absent, by running against Michael J. Dukakis, a man who managed to look ridiculous riding in a tank, and allegedly went down to defeat because he'd paroled a black man. I actually could not remember who Bush 41 had managed to defeat. Dukakis was that much of a nonentity.

Consider also Barack Obama's surprising, media-powered ascent from junior, Chicago-machine, present-voting flack to undistinguished U.S. Senator, to the Oval Office. He had to get past Hillary, but given the well-oiled machine that the Democratic National Convention has become, this was likely in the cards, an arrangement to which Hillary consented, with the understanding that she'd get her turn. Inferring that what the Podesta Emails reveal is not a new strategy, but rather an old one, being run through with merciless efficiency, we can see that the Republicans probably got some help from the media making that McCain/Palin ticket look like a glass of soda pop when anybody with a nose could smell the poison in the mix. In the end, it was like McCain was trying to get away from himself, and Palin, since then, has done nothing but give Alaska and perky brunettes a bad name. Of course, she still pulls a long string of fools in her train. She's what the Democrats call a "Pied Piper Candidate."

You remember the Pied Piper? When the people of Hamelin failed to pay him for seducing the rats out of the town with his magic flute, he piped a different tune, and led the children of the town right out the city gates, and they were never seen again. That's a grim fairy tale.

The Podesta Emails reveal that the DNC's media power is such that they were able to deligitimize the best Republican candidates, judged on their ability to defeat Hillary. But how did they do that? They didn't do it by having Keith Olbermann scold them. They didn't do it by having Rachel Maddow analyze them. No, they gave them enough rope, and how did they do that? Well, that happened over at Fox News, where every shitbag with his own bag of shit can find a window to throw it out of. Fox News actually became the Pied Piper, selling, strangely enough, to that most bloodless of people, those least given to careless rage, the young white men of the nation, a diet of rage, frustration, and resentment. And they have left the village, following that Pied Piper whose furious tune intoxicates them with promises of glory, of a beautiful wall, tremendous strength, restoration of personal power, and renewed national influence. Common sense resurgent.

Here's the rub. Or a couple of them. The Clinton-dominated DNC invoked a demon to drive us into Clinton's big tent filled with fearful people. In James Blish's "Black Easter," an industrialist who thinks he can harness the Devil to his work arranges to open the Gates of Hell for one nasty Halloween celebration, and is most disappointed to discover that he cannot close them, and Hell has come to reign on earth. The only man standing between us and global perdition is a little priest, a Catholic exorcist, and his only power is to invoke the Biblical prophecy that the Lord of Heaven will triumph when the last Trump blows. The Devil's response is chilling: "Each of the opposing sides in any war always predicts victory. They cannot both be right.”

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” This formulation was first declared to me by some peer at the age of three or four – a veritable wise man he seemed to me – revealing the meaning of the mysterious three-monkey tableux so often encountered among the knick knacks adults accumulated in those days. It was a big revelation: the three monkeys, the first covering his eyes, the second his ears, and the third, his mouth – were a visual representation of the concept. Oh, now that I understood, how wise and virtuous those monkeys seemed. I understood in a flash why they were venerated by so many of the great and powerful big people. They were not taking in, or spreading “evil.” These monkeys were definitely on the right side of the game, since everybody knew “evil” was the worst thing of all.

So I was really surprised when I told my dad that I’d realized how important the wisdom of the three monkeys was, and he told me it was a bunch of crap. Nobody, he explained, should keep their mouth shut about evil. If there was evil going on, we needed to find out about it. We needed to see it, hear it, talk about it, and put an end to it. My namby-pamby see-no, hear-no, speak-no-evil pose went up in flames that day, and I’ve held a grudge against those cowardly monkeys ever since for leading me to make an ass out of myself in front of my dad.

Recently, I heard that an anonymous website had just come up with a list of suspect websites proliferating “fake news” to advance a Russian agenda, and the Washington Post elevated this website to the status of a genuine news-origin certifying authority. I did not bother to be concerned. People who will avoid the blacklisted news outlets are engaged in proactive self-censorship. By supporting the list, they tell everyone in earshot that they aren’t hearing or seeing fake news, so it’s impossible that they will speak it. Their minds won’t be contaminated by fake news, and no one can blame them for spreading it. If the thought police look in their heads, they will find them empty.

Three-monkey relief carving (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil) on Shinkyusha. Nikko, Japan

Fake News (To the tune of “Downtown”)by Charles Carreon12/10/16

Turn on the TVHear the things that they’re sayingWell it sounds a lotLike News

Pick up the paperRead the things that are writtenWell it surely looksLike News

But now the “Prop or Not” ListHas landed in my TwitterAnd Huff-po, WaPo, Daily BeastThey all are in a flutter –What to Believe?The Rooskies are under the BedThe Chinese are here to be fedThis isFake News!Let’s see if it’s on the listOh dear, Look at it right here,Fake News!Straight from the Kremlin, they say!

Power’s corruptingAnd media has powerTo sell Fake News!Now who do you thinkMight be in a positionTo buy Fake News?

I mean the news is spozed toGive you all the skinnyThe straight dope and the lowdownAnd the truly on the level.Good luck with that!Citizens United took over your headNow the screaming liberalsSay Conservatives are RedThis is Fake NewsDon’t try to sell me thisFake NewsI know this shit’s on the listFake NewsJust stick this right up your ass.

Truth is expensive,So they use it quite sparingly inFake NewsLike the sun’s in the skyAnd there’s a base on the moonYou call that Fake News?Your mind is just a playgroundFor thoughts of other’s makingYour choices like a baby’s candyRight there for the taking.

They have to lie, tooThe Rooskies are under the BedThe Chinese are here to be fedThis isFake News!Let’s see if it’s on the listOh dear, Look at it right here,Fake News!Straight from the Kremlin, they say!

Washington loves nothing so much as a hunt, and the hunt started by the CIA, that set CNN and the rest of the press to croaking like a swamp full of bullfrogs, has been a Royal Hunt, indeed. Built of purest innuendo, the “intelligence dossier” that gave room for full-bore accusations of treason against the President Elect, has been elevated to the level of “credibility” by circuitous statements that hang from nothing but their own brazen assertions. Take this sampling of tautological statements that attempt to turn the “intelligence dossier” into something other than naked slander:

Jesus fucking Christ. This gun isn't smoking. It's burst into flame. "The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman, John D. Podesta." This is the evidence that the election was corrupted by the Trump team's collusion with a foreign power, and it seems very very very likely Trump knew. Treason.-- Rebecca Solnit (Tweet), The New York Times

“Look, don't take anything in this dossier as gospel. But it's definitely evidence in favor of some pretty extraordinary claims.”-- Zack Beauchamp @zackbeauchamp

With CNN confirming that intelligence chiefs consider this report credible, it's about time to start using the word "treason."-- Markos Moulitsas @markos

The evidence is questionable, but the idea looks entirely plausible … Unverifiable sensational details aside, the Trump dossier is a good reflection of how things are run in the Kremlin … with methods borrowed from the KGB … [so] whatever the truth of Putin’s connections with Trump, [it’s all] pretty scary.-- Andrei Soldatov, The Guardian

Regardless of truth or falsity, I can see why they thought the president-elect should know.-- Former CIA Director Michael Hayden

The New Journalism: Believing Double-talk From People Who Lie for A Living

Using weasel-words like “alleged,” “purported,” and “not-Gospel,” to describe the “intelligence dossier,” while simultaneously citing it as “evidence of treason” is just doubletalk. Journalists used to help us make the distinction between allegations and evidence, but that’s not the approach they’re taking here – urging readers to believe for the sake of believing whenever the story is good enough to believe. That a narrative is “stunning and believable” is a description of good fiction, not an indication of its accuracy. That an idea is “plausible” does not commend it to the wise for acceptance, but merely for consideration. That intelligence agents sometimes pass on information “regardless of truth or falsity” does not suggest that, by being passed along, false information becomes true.

But the authors of these words are all urging us to jump to another conclusion, not so tediously weighed down with logic: “When an ‘intelligence agent’ says something, even without a witness or anything more than their own words to support it, we must all stand up and salute it as ‘evidence’”. Well, for those of us with a memory longer than, say, 18 months, we can remember all the way back to when a spook was a spook, and his word, without evidence, was the worthless doubletalk of people who would have to kill you if they told you the truth. How times have changed.

“Less Here Than Meets the Eye”

Americans have been given a choice: to believe that Russia has its hand up Trump’s butt, and is running him like a puppet, or to deny that this is a proven fact. Those of us who are less than convinced that we are facing a commie takeover by Donald the Terrible don’t get a second chance to believe. We’re out of the discussion, exiled from “liberal” society, that has somehow decided to believe whatever the CIA has to say about the guy who was headed for, and now is sitting in, the White House. When we try to run down the facts behind the “intelligence dossier” that has been adopted as true by the same crowd that told us to watch out for “fake news,” we discover there are none. It’s all conjecture. As Tallula Bankhead famously observed, “There is less here than meets the eye.”

The Goal? To Imprison the President in Failed Policies

But the lack of evidence never sways the faith of believers. The beaters in this Royal Hunt have dedicated all of their firepower and noisemaking ability at flushing the President out of his lair and straight into the policy prison where the entire Establishment is now wailing that all Presidents must reside. Or what? There is a possibility of what? A rupture with past policies? An overturning of existing relationships? The reordering of relationships?

All those briefing books Trump refuses to read – they’re full of catechism, not knowledge. They are the latest advice from a cadre of pinheads who haven’t done anything particularly right in US foreign policy as far back as they’ve been an influence. Their catechism teaches that military expansionism is good foreign policy, and their dominance of all Washington thinking has now metastasized into the giant boil of pissed-off spies erupting on the forehead of official Washington in a grotesque, pulsing tumor. The only thing more grotesque than the CIA's resort to McCarthy-era propaganda tactics is the convulsive Seig-Heiling of the media lackeys as one body, thrilled at last to be part of the "liberal agenda."

Mistake me not for a Trumper, on this day or any of the remaining days of his administration. Nevertheless, the McCarthyite clamor now resonating the echo-chambers of the media regarding Donald Trump and the “Russian hacking scandal” is mere journalistic flatulence occasioned by gluttonous consumption of fact-free propaganda. What effect it will have on the policies of a man who seems to be hell bent on driving his motorcade through the front yard of the approved political habitation has yet to be seen.

Julian Jaynes didn’t quite convince Richard Dawkins that the theory of mind proposed in his 1976 psych-classic, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” was correct – Dawkins remains on the fence about whether it’s pure bullshit or pure genius – but Jaynes certainly won first prize for Most Provoking Title for A Serious Book. Jaynes was competing in the burgeoning post-Freudian psych-theory market where Szasz, Laing, Leary and Lilly had already pitched their tents, so he undoubtedly wanted to cut through clutter and get people to hear his idea. The only drawback to his strategy is that, to the pedestrian ear, Jaynes’ dramatic declaration sounds a little like, “We Come From Crazy Ancestors Who Had A Breakdown, and Became Us.”

Bicameralism, Split-Brain Syndrome in Pre-Iliadic Humanity

Jaynes argues that our ability to cognize ourselves as human beings results from the linguistic integration of the two hemispheres of our brain. Jaynes further argues that for millennia, our human ancestors possessed a “bicameral mind,” in which the two brain hemispheres collaborated without the medium of self-conscious awareness, before the activity of naming events, objects and living beings blossomed into the magic of individual consciousness. If you were equipped with a bicameral mind living in the Indian subcontinent in 4000 BC, according to Jaynes, you literally could not think “I,” much less, “I should pick these mangos to eat later.” You’d just pick the mangos, eat as many as you could, and save some for later, because of learned responses generated by your nervous system, that he calls “aptic” systems, i.e., systems that make us apt at performing certain actions, what used to be called “instinct.”

The above illustration presumes that mangos are familiar, and thus no stress is created when they are seen. The person sees the mango, knows it is food, eats and stores it. But suppose the same person discovers an unfamiliar fruit outside of their usual domain. Now the bicameral mind might kick into action. The right brain might manifest as a voice, emanating from a haze around the fruit tree, and that voice might say, “Eat of this tree, for it is good.” Why? Since the idea of the self does not exist in the bicameral mind, the idea of aiding the self to survive cannot arise. Jaynes’ vision of these type of people includes even the heroes of the Iliad, such as Achilles, Hector, and Menelaus, all of whom ascribe what seem like rash, passionate actions to the irresistible power of the gods, whose voices drive them to act in ways that modern humans would call intemperate.

The bicameral condition of pre-Iliadic man, is therefore one of unconscious action, directed by forces either automatic or hallucinated. The automatic forces are the “aptic systems,” and the “divine” hallucinations are provoked by the untethered right hemisphere. Jaynes supports his interesting theory with evidence derived from split-brain research that proves that, in cases where the physical mechanism of hemispheric interconnection is physically damaged, the right brain and the left brain fail to integrate two things: perceptions and concepts. The integration of perceptions and concepts is a metaphor-fueled activity that occurs due to the interaction of brain hemispheres and the speech centers of the brain. Self-awareness and self-interest then supplants the visionary hallucinations.

Bicameralism in Westworld

A modern Jaynes fan, Marcel Kuijsten, head of an Institute dedicated to his theory, was recently interviewed on the topic of bicameralism after the term was uttered on the current TV series, “Westworld.” Kuijsten described the bicameral mind as what humans have “after language develops, but before we learn consciousness [so that instead] of an introspective mind-space, we’re hearing a commanding voice when we have decisions to make [until eventually humans] develop the ability to have introspection and little by little, the hallucinations are suppressed.”

“The hallucinations” that are associated with the “voices of the gods” must be understood to be quite different from something like “the voice of conscience,” which is a conscious structure constructed of concepts, that couldn’t exist in a bicameral mind. Unlike Jehovah, these “gods” perform no miracles, command no one to do the impossible, and exert a pure authority. By “pure authority,” I mean that when their inner voices speak, the bicameral people act. Bicameral minds cannot ponder the “influence of the divine” upon the “self,” nor can they choose by an act of “free will” to behave as “a sinner” or “a saint.”

Submission, Not Anarchy, Is the Bicameral Condition

So far, so good, but without a coordinating authority, would not all of these “gods,” shooting off their mouths in everyone’s head, create chaos? How can it be that, as Jaynes argues, bicameral minds operated the first agrarian societies, managing vast irrigated fields and timed harvests, gathering all the grain into central granaries, and operating complex administrative systems? As Kuijsten helpfully explains, summarizing Jaynes’ idea – bicameral people tended to hear the boss’ voice:

“You would hear the voice of the chief of the tribe, or the king, and then as the leader died, what would happen was that followers would still hear his commanding voice. So that’s why you see all around the world, the dead are treated as living, and fed, and propped up, and worshiped. So in the death of the leader, we see the birth of the concept of the gods. In ancient Egypt, for example, each king that dies becomes the God of Osiris.”

Thus, argues Jaynes, when the Chief died, people continued to get advice from him, a lot like the Clooney character showing up to help out the Sandra Bullock character in Gravity, described in this review:[1]

“[T]he scene in question involves the return of Clooney’s veteran astronaut, Matt Kowalski. Late in the game, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) has reached her breaking point. She thinks that she has exhausted every possible opportunity to return home. She shuts down the oxygen the capsule that contains her, and prepares to asphyxiate. But she’s woken out of her stupor by her supervisor (Clooney), who reminds her of one last option she hadn’t explored. Only the catch is, Kowalski’s still dead, and Stone was – what? Imagining him? Envisioning him? Conjuring his essence? The scene is open to multiple interpretations.”

Well, if you were about to pull the plug on your ventilator because you couldn’t figure out how to save yourself, it might push you right back into a bicameral condition. Note the Bullock character has exhausted all of her conscious resources. This is a situation that, however good it is for the rest of her life, is just not being adequately addressed by “consciousness,” and so, she reverts to bicamerality long enough to get that “aha” experience, and rediscover what is beyond the known. But how would she explain it to the folks back at home? So she would quickly revert from bicamerality to consciousness, as soon as the danger was over.

Brain Plasticity and Post-Conscious Humanity

How did humans graduate from bicameralism to “consciousness?” As best I can tell at this stage of the reading, through language. By learning to attach names to perceptions, to discrete objects, to persons, and then, to the self. Having cognized the self, we can begin to experience it, to use it, and to recognize it in others.

Because Jaynes was arguing that human brains now operate differently from those of our ancestors with the same cerebral hardware, he also had to argue that this change in function was possible, thus throwing in his lot with the newly-emerging paradigm of brain plasticity. Today, we have plenty of evidence that the brain repurposes its neural resources with great flexibility, and can thus agree that the functioning of the brain has evolved as linguistic capacities developed, causing newer brains to be wired more efficiently as generations have grown up with ever-more sophisticated speech resources, including of course, the Internet.

So one must ask: if our consciousness arose from the “breakdown” of the bicameral mind, due toits inability to handle the stress of ambiguous situations as efficiently as a “conscious” interface, what could lead to the “breakdown” of consciousness? Could it be the labor of keeping up with machine intelligence? Could it be the overtaxing of consciousness by loading it with too many alternatives for a single mind to process? And if so, what would the next evolutionary stage be?

Each Night & Day I Pray for the Fall of the U.S.A.[Trump] SWAMP … TOO BIG. TRUMPTHOR DESTROY EVERYTHING!— by Tara Carreon

The nation’s self-image has suffered a blow from which it will never recover – the President’s weird hair flip is the new logo for “USA” on every TV in the world, pushing aside the Stars and Stripes. Trump’s flip is as recognizable as a Coke can, and far more menacing to the world’s governing elite. President Donald has put the world on notice that the U.S. Presidency is his job to do as he pleases.

Campaign slogans like “drain the swamp” have been traded for “buy Ivanka’s stuff.” What swamp? Damn Nordstrom! Of course the Goldman guys are in charge of the gold! Must we talk about women again? Look, the good old days at Studio 54 are forgotten – abortions are verboten. Energy? The national parks are being carved up for immediate exploitation in a big way. Criticism? Those who don’t like our program will be acquainted with the business end of a pitchfork. None of this is what you’d expect from a man who ran as the sworn enemy of Washington corruption. He seems born to it.

Who’da thunk it? He lied. But I don’t hear a swelling rebellion from the trailer parks, the suburbs, the Walmart parking lots. Those angry white guys wanting a fair shake aren’t worried about the swarm of Wall Street bankers pouring into the Trump Administration. Why?

The entire ship of state is listing backwards into the past, the far past, like Reconstruction. Under Republican rule, realities can change very quickly. A little nudge with controlled demolitions, and the dominoes started falling after 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, NSA domestic spying, all metastasized during the Cheney Years. Now, thanks to the incredibly stupid children’s crusade that passed for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the USA is once again trussed up like a submissive at a BDSM party, ready to provide complete satisfaction for plutocrats now dressing without shame as total Nazis.

A lot of people are sure that there’s going to be a great big rebellion. Kathleen Parker gives Trump’s impeachment an ETA of 2018, at the latest, when she predicts a protest vote more powerful than a soccer mom’s backhand will give Democrats a Congressional majority in both houses, and remove all vestiges of Trump from the Oval Office, if the occupant is not by then already President Pence.

I’m not so sure. I note that sales of “It Can’t Happen Here” have surged 12,000% since Trump took office. Sinclair Lewis’ demagogue is Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, a homespun, straight-talking politician with the confidence of a carnival barker, who rises to power on a populist platform, and implements a corpocratic dictatorship with brownshirts, clubs, and all the good stuff. There are uncannily close parallels between Buzz Windrip and Donald Trump, and many of us have been waiting all of our lives to see how it would play if an economically devastated white, male voting public were given the chance to vote for Buzz – or Donald. Since we now have the answer to that question, we move to the next one.

Might it be possible to organize all the bigots now polishing rifles in anticipation of defending their homes against rampaging hordes of illegals? Perhaps they could be offered jobs policing and transporting illegals and other undesirables out to the border wall? And running the internment camps that will have to be set up in every community to manage the outbound migration. Since there are large numbers of Americans who believe that the country is under threat, and who are familiar with the use of weapons and security equipment, they actually stand ready to be recruited to imprison their fellows.

In a relatively plausible scenario, these people could be recruited anonymously and secretly, and organized into neighborhood cells. Before launch day, their neighbors wouldn’t know what was being already prepared. One day, the neighborhood cell would all get emails, and in unison, begin patrolling the neighborhood as a security force, and assist in the immediate arrest and deportation of illegals and other undesirables.

If this scenario were in force, it would be logical to take it all the way up the chain of command, and take over power stations, government offices, and transportation facilities. It would be a flash Blitzkrieg. Hitler would be impressed with the efficiency, at how the communication system could be used to take over the system it was intended to serve.

Anyone can see that implementing these scenarios is well within the realm of the possible, and could be used to establish paramilitary, dictatorial rule with the active participation of a minority of citizens to procure the surrender of the majority. We tend to think that so long as a majority of the people would not approve of such a shift in power, it could not happen, but that is not correct. All it requires is for people with strong, malevolent intent to work diligently to spring the trap, using the power of surprise and state-sanctioned lethal force.

I can hear the huffing and puffing from people who reject all such scenarios as utterly absurd, an impossibility. One question? Did you predict that Hillary would win?

Burnby Rancid

13 red and white stripes flyingWhite for skin and red for dyingWhy can't iWalk on throughAnd not feel likeOne is in hellWe don't need no waterLet the motherfucker burn

The Art of War: How Will Team Trump Fare on the Field of Battle?by Charles CarreonFebruary 18, 2017

Sun Tzu, author of the Chinese strategy classic, The Art of War, observed that if you take a proper accounting of the strengths and weaknesses of an army, you can forecast how it will fare in armed conflict. Five factors must be assessed to determine which army will win an armed engagement: philosophy, climate, terrain, leadership, and military methods. Sun Tzu commends those who would engage in armed conflict to the consideration of these factors:

“Which government has the right philosophy?”“Which season and place have the advantage?”“Which commander has the skill?”“Which system has strong incentives and effective punishments?”“Which forces are strongest?”

Analyzing the Factors That Lead to Victory

The most effective organizational philosophy unites owners, managers and workers behind a common goal. The best managers promote the right philosophy, choose the right season for action, and fight only when it makes sense. When does fighting make sense? Only when, after having made the assessment, they know they will win. Indeed, the first step in successful warriorship is analyzing one’s own forces and those of the adversary before engaging in war. As Sun Tzu observes:

“Some commanders perform this analysis.If you use these commanders, you will win.Keep them.Some commanders ignore this analysis.If you use these commanders, you will lose.Get rid of them.”

Like military commanders, business leaders should take stock of their chances in the market by performing a similar analysis. A business will thrive if its workers share a group purpose, are coordinated, have the equipment needed to do their work, apply sound business methods, and enjoy good leadership. Looking at the Trump administration’s first actions, we can see that this organization does not score well in this analysis.

Philosophies That Lead to Victory

First, let us consider the administration’s stated philosophy -- to make America great, as it once was, before terrible things began happening sometime after Reagan left office, and the nation’s spirit was darkened by an evil emanating from the liberal media. Trump’s philosophy blames outsiders for America’s lost greatness, and seeks to restore it by erecting protective barriers. He will build a wall to keep out job-stealing immigrants entering from the south. He enacted the now-defunct travel ban to keep out terrorists from seven Islamic countries. He wants to tax imports to keep out cheap goods from China and elsewhere.

This philosophy has the capacity to unite only what is, on a good day, a slim majority of white male voters to preserve their advantages as against encroaching “minorities” that are rapidly moving into the majority. This union of disaffected white men was sufficient to win one election against a very poorly-chosen Democratic candidate who withered in the heat of Trump’s white-hot incitements. Whether this narrow philosophy can carry Trump farther will depend on what the other factors contribute to his administration’s performance, because Trump’s plan to Make America Great appeals only to a small portion of the electorate, and negatively motivates a wide swath of opposition.

Consider the Climate

Second, let’s consider the climate in which the Trump administration is operating. Climate is driven by timing, seasonal changes, and weather, that can be hostile or accommodating to one’s military or business plans. Even the Wehrmacht could not defeat a Stalingrad winter while dressed in summer clothes. Consider the significance of the numerous indications that climate catastrophe is much closer than previously predicted. Trump’s “drill, baby drill” approach to energy policy is poorly-timed, and his rejection of renewables -- wind, solar, conservation, and the smart grid -- pivots the nation away from technological strategies that will bring the most value to the nation during the impending planetary heat wave. Trump’s plans for the nation would be better suited to that time when the USA seemed to have limitless resources from which to draw and endless room in which to discharge waste. Those times are gone, and enshrining wasteful technology as “American” will not make it economically viable.

Now let us consider the economic climate. Trump rode in on a wave of discontent among the formerly middle-class, who have watched their advantages swept away by economic devastation due to financial excesses, governmental disinterest, and the all-devouring thinking machines. Trump made promises to the emerging underclass, and is now expected to deliver. Many people will give Trump a few years to deliver the bacon to their front door, but they won’t wait forever. Eventually, unless of course an actual war blows up to distract us from our domestic poverty, Trump will be judged by those holding bags of student loan debt that they are unable to service due to lack of gainful employment. At that point, the climate could turn truly nasty.

Skillful This Is Not

Third, let us consider what kind of skill the President has demonstrated, which I define as the ability to accomplish your purpose. Trump’s first act of authority was to enact the travel ban. On the plus side, it was bold, decisive, and a lot of people thought it would be successful. Putting it into sales-speak, Trump treated his Executive Order banning immigration from seven countries as a new product that would sell well with his target market, and he was right. It was a hit with Trump’s base. Encouraged by what he knew would be mass approval from his adulating crowds, Trump was confident, and therefore he thought he was ready to launch.

Trump believes that launching the product tells the public you’re confident of success, and since confidence breeds success, you must launch quickly. Trump was in such a hurry to launch that no one had time to review the constitutionality of his Executive Order. Trump’s team didn’t call anyone to play “Devil’s Advocate,” and went to market with a vulnerable product. Then the competition pounced.

The opposing team highlighted all of the travel ban’s bad consumer features: people locked out of the country, people stranded in foreign airports, people blocking airports in support of detained foreign nationals locked in the TSA offices, and lawyers besieging the courts with the assistance of two state governments – Washington and Minnesota -- that claimed their sovereign interests, their state educational institutions, and their citizens, were injured by the travel ban. Trump is not intimidated by judges -- perhaps in the course of filing 3,000 lawsuits, he has come to view them as mere functionaries whose will is usually an extension of his own. And it’s not been long since Trump impugned the impartiality of the Hispanic Federal District Judge presiding over the Trump University lawsuit. So when the travel ban was held unconstitutional by Seattle Federal Judge Robart, Trump’s caustic tweet was hardly surprising:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

Bad enough, you say, but a day later, the President had focused his 140-character assassination weapon directly on Judge Robart, proactively making him the fall-guy for the terrorist attacks that Trump is trying to prevent:

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

A few days later, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed with Judge Robart, putting the Executive Order on hold indefinitely, turning Trump’s predictions of victory into a further source of embarrassment, and fueling further Twitter attacks on the judiciary, as the President tweeted his defiance:

SEE YOU IN COURT!

The phrasing was not inspired, but his meaning was clear. Screw that liberal Ninth Circuit panel, he was marching right up the street to visit SCOTUS and straighten this out. But a few days later, Trump’s Department of Justice announced it would not appeal the President’s loss to the 8-member Supreme Court. Instead, Trump would issue a new, improved Executive Order to accomplish the same purpose that had already been found unconstitutional. None of this was skillful.

Trump should have at least been advised not to tweet his final brazen boast. He should have listened to someone who could have told him that the 8-member Supreme Court hasn’t delivered a right-wing win since the conservative majority lost its enfant terrible, Justice Scalia. Surely someone could have told Trump that the evenly-balanced Court would probably not overrule this Ninth Circuit decision in a month of Sundays, especially after all the anti-judicial hate-tweets emanating from the White House. Instead, he didn’t get this news until he’d already stuck his foot in it.

“Sad!” as the President is fond of tweeting. If Trump’s legal team had just waited for Congress to approve Trump’s ninth Supreme Court Justice, the grateful new appointee would have swung the decision over to Trump’s side. Through bad timing, Trump logged a loss where he could have notched a victory. To head straight for a judicial conflict without suitably establishing favorable conditions at SCOTUS was a dunderhead move.

To translate this sad tale into marketing-speak – after the product was rejected by consumers, retailers, and wholesalers, team Trump pulled the defective travel ban off the market with the promise to release a new, improved version really soon! Unfortunately for Team Trump, when a product fails, the market remains ready to reject all similar products from the same manufacturer, unless it can roll out something like “Classic Coke.” Unfortunately, “Classic Bigotry” doesn’t have that type of built-in market appeal, even with those prone to nostalgia.

A Slack System of Discipline

Fourth, we should consider whether the the Trump administration is improving team performance with proper rewards and punishments. Looking at the rewards, they appear to be distributed despite bad performance. Kelly Conway goes out and plugs “Ivanka’s stuff,” ends up looking like an ethics dunce, and is rewarded for her ethical gaffes with continued praise. Trump is apparently the kind of leader who doesn’t care if his players play by the rules, which assures they will not.

However, this slackness seems to be motivating “whistleblowers,” as national-intelligence leakers are now known, to subject Team Trump to a little discipline of their own. Many DC spooks are unfriendly to the Trump team, and this is producing dangerous fruit. It must have been very disturbing news to the President that the FBI had tapped General Flynn’s phone and was accusing him of breaking the law by talking to Putin’s man about Obama’s sanctions against Russia.

General Flynn is receiving swift punishment for activity that, in past administrations, would have been swept under the rug by an accommodating national security state. After all, both Nixon and Reagan had secret communications with North Vietnam and Iran, respectively, signaling the enemy that they’d get better deals from incoming Republicans than they would from outgoing Democrats. That didn’t get anybody fired!

These modern “intelligence agencies” seem to have a mind of their own. Trump and his team are wrapped in a Laocoön with fractious government agencies that bodes ill for him. If Trump doesn’t have control over the covert security apparatus of government, and cannot prevent it from striking at his minions, he is going to wield considerably less power than Presidents who can. Just imagine if someone at the FBI had tried to pull a similar number on Dick Cheney. A faceful of buckshot, literal or figurative, would have certainly been the upshot.

Mistaking the Source of Presidential Strength

Fifth, let us ask ourselves, how strong is Team Trump? In a group enterprise like representative government, strength comes from the ability to aggregate power to your position. Momentum takes a long time to build, moves swiftly when it is finally engaged, and makes things look inevitable once it has worked its magic. Strength must be cultivated in such an environment. It cannot be exercised before its basis has been established.

Trump may have most miscalculated in this area. He appears to believe that the office of the President comes with an inherent grant of authority, an illusion created by the skill that we call “looking Presidential.” Looking Presidential means never over-investing yourself in a single gesture, like the travel ban, so your prestige will not suffer if the gesture is rejected. Looking Presidential means not giving orders if there is any doubt they will be obeyed, because the appearance of impotence corrodes the mystique of power. Looking Presidential means showing grace when things do not go your way, acknowledging that being sporting means losing a hand now and then.

Prognosis: More of the Same, At Higher Speed

If Team Trump were a startup, I would have to give it next to no chances of survival as a profitable entity. This doesn’t mean that the entire Trump Administration will be ineffective in accomplishing desirable results for the clique of billionaires who have the President’s ear. Tremendous things could occur, because of course, the US government is not a startup. It does not operate under economic imperatives that demand that its products provide some saleable benefit. It can operate at a deficit, generating more credit to avoid making cost-benefit decisions, while carrying on with sentimental policies that provide psychological comfort to a shrinking cohort of backward-looking voters.

Ironically, the President most identified with the “businessman” mind-set in our entire history is now sitting in the Oval Office, pursuing policies that business leaders who turn a daily profit would instantly recognize as a sure path to failure. In a further irony, Trumps’ policies will blend well with the wasteful, failure-rewarding culture that dominates the military establishment, to which the largest proportion of national revenue is allocated. The revolving doors that enrich private persons and corporations at the expense of the nation will likely begin to rotate at speeds sufficient to generate turbine power and gale-force winds. Hold on to your hat.